Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jon Askew for whom there was no substitute, Chris Blow, The Mayor, Councillor Marsha Moseley and Maddy Redpath.  The following Councillors attended as substitutes respectively; The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Dennis Booth, Graham Eyre and Deborah Seabrook.

In accordance with the local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must not participate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

If that DPI has not been registered, you must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.

No disclosable pecuniary interests were declared. 

Councillor Deborah Seabrook declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 20/P/00825 – Urn Field, Downside Road, Guildford, GU4 8PH owing to the fact that it abutted the ward which she represented and confirmed it would not affect her objectivity in the consideration of this application.

Councillor Deborah Seabrook declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 21/P/01683 – High Brambles, Park Corner Drive, East Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 6SE owing to the fact that some of the neighbours involved were her close personal friends and so she would leave the meeting when it came to the consideration of this application.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 October as attached at Item 3. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.  The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 November will be attached to the supplementary late sheets.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 20 October and 3 November 2021 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the procedures for determining planning applications.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the creation of a floodlit artificial pitch with a 6-lane all weather running track, a football pitch, relocation of cricket nets, extension to sports pavilion balcony and new javelin, discuss, shot put and long jump area alongside the creation of a new store building and additional on-site car parking.  (Additional information received 04.01.21 and 07.01.21 landscape visual impact, archaeology, drainage and planning statement addendum).  

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Ms Katherine Atkinson (to object);

·         Mr Charles Wilce (to object);

·         Mr Steve Smith (Head Teacher of Guildford County School) (In Support) and;

·         Mr David Boyd (Head Teacher of Tormead School) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from John Busher, Specialist Development Management Majors.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included a site location plan and an updated block plan.  The application related to works and improvements to the existing sporting complex.  The site was located in the Green Belt as well as within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site consisted of a number of running pitches, grass running track and cricket pitches.  There was also a small pavilion building and a car park.  The main changes comprised of a six-lane running track to the north of the site and a new all-weather hockey pitch with fencing around its perimeter and replacing the existing football pitch.  The site would be illuminated by retractable lighting columns spaced out along both sides of the pitch.  The rugby pitch would also be relocated to the centre of the site, a new football pitch in the south-east corner and the existing parking area expanded to accommodate coaches with a new access and turning area and additional parking for approximately 50 vehicles provided on existing hardstanding.  A small extension to the existing balcony on the pavilion building was also proposed.

The proposed lighting for the hockey pitch would be formed of columns that when extended would be a maximum of 13 metres and when retracted 2.8 metres tall.  Condition 9 stated that the lights should only operate from eight o'clock in the evening on Monday to Saturday, not at all on Sundays or on Bank or National Holidays and that the columns should be fully retracted when not in use.  There was also a 3-metre difference in height in the hockey pitch levels. 

Planning Officers had concluded that the proposal due to its use for outdoor sport and recreation would be an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt and would not result in any material harm to its openness.  As the site was also located within the AONB, the NPPF required that great weight be afforded to the conservation and enhancement of its natural beauty, the NPPF also made clear that the AONB should benefit from the highest level of protection.  The majority of the proposal was  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full detailed application for engineering operations to form a new roundabout, stub road and priority junction access.  

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr Malcolm Aish (Chairman of Ockham Parish Council) (to object);

·         Ms Frances Porter (to object) and;

·         Mr Charles Collins (Savills) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from Hannah Yates, Specialist Development Management (Majors).  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which contained the relevant legal advice in relation to the Grampian conditions and the sequence in which planning applications could be determined.  In relation to any objection relating to the prematurity of this development ahead of the DCO being approved, officers had sought legal advice and the law stated that it was unlawful for a local planning authority to refuse to grant planning consent on the basis that further consent maybe required to facilitate the development even when the land in question was outside of the control of the applicant and the local authority.  The supplementary late sheets also included a summary of two further objections, one from a local resident and the other was from RHS Wisley.  The last paragraph on page 209 of the agenda also incorrectly stated that the only public right of way across the site was a bridleway however there were also public footpaths towards the south of the site. 

The Committee was informed that the application sought full planning permission for engineering operations to form a new roundabout, stub road and priority junction access.  This access was proposed to be taken from the proposed lane diversion which formed part of the DCO, for this reason the application was only acceptable if the DCO was approved and built out.  This was secured by the Grampian condition 4 on page 201 of the agenda.   The DCA works formed the appropriate baseline to assess the impacts of this proposal.  A new access was proposed to serve the former Wisley Airfield strategic site allocated under Policy 35 of the Local Plan.

The Grampian condition was a key aspect of the proposal as it was only acceptable as part of that with the lane diversion.   To cover this condition 4 read that ‘No development shall take place until (a) the National Highways Investment Strategy (RIS) improvement to M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley Interchange Development Consent Order (DCO) has been granted and (b) written confirmation has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with National Highways and Surrey County Council) that the relevant part of the DCO being the Wisley Lane diversion, has been implemented/commenced on site.’  This condition had been agreed by both National Highways and Surrey County Council as an appropriate way to control the development.  Due to the importance of this condition the Council obtained legal advice and it had been confirmed that the application can be determined now with the use of Grampian, even taking into consideration the considerable delay to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full detailed application for engineering operations to form a new roundabout and stub road. 

The application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting in May 2021 who agreed to defer the application until after 12 November 2021, until a decision had been made on the M25/A3 Junction 10 works Development Consent Order (DCO). The applicant had lodged an appeal against non-determination on this application.

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Hannah Yates.  The Committee noted that the proposal was for engineering operations to form a new roundabout and stub road where the priority junction was and was the only difference between this application and application 21/P/01582.  In the event that the Council could have determined the application, the recommendation would have been to approve, subject to the conditions set out in the report including the updates on the supplementary late sheets.

A motion was moved to approve the application but not seconded.  The motion therefore failed. 

A subsequent motion was moved to refuse the application which was seconded and carried. 

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee

RESOLVED to refuse application 20/P/01708 for the following reasons:

1. The development proposed will result in a detrimental impact to the amenities of the occupiers of Elm Corner from noise, vibration and light pollution related to the construction of the roundabout, stub road and priority junction access. This is due to the scale of the works in relation to the level of engineering required for this infrastructure and the proximity of a number of properties on Elm Corner to the construction compound and the site. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy G1(3) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/2007), and the NPPF.

2. The development proposed, by reason of the large size of the of the roundabout and considerable amount of additional hardstanding and other operational development associated with the road, in combination with the removal of a large number of trees on site would be contrary to the landscape character of the area, forming and incongruous and insensitive addition. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy D1 of the Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019, policy LNPEN1B of the Lovelace Neighbourhood Plan and the NPPF.

3. The loss of 0.15 hectares of the Wisley Airfield Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI), and its replacement with hardstanding would fail to conserve or enhance the biodiversity within this SNCI which has been selected for its importance for plants,  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed erection of 8 dwellings (C3 use class), associated access, landscaping and parking, following demolition of Waterside Farm Cottage, outbuilding and Wharf Lane garages.

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr Dave Burnett (to object)

·         Mr Steve Loosley (to object)

·         Mr Laurence Moore (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from planning officer, Katie Williams.  The Committee noted that the proposal was for the erection of eight dwellings, associated access, landscaping and parking following demolition of the existing dwelling outbuilding and garages.  The application was the subject of a non-determination appeal and the Committee was therefore unable to formally determine the application.  Instead, the Committee must resolve what they would have done had they been in the position to determine the application. 

The application site was located within the settlement of Send which had been inset from the Green Belt following the adoption of the 2019 Local Plan.  The site was within the corridor of the River Wey and was adjacent to the Wey Navigation Conservation Area.  It was also within the 400 metre to 5 kilometres buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths special Protection Area and was within approximately 1 kilometre of a Site of Special scientific Interest (SNCI).  The site itself was comprised of a detached bungalow and its outbuildings together with a small area of garaging and parking located to the south which was within the ownership of Guildford Borough Council.  The surrounding area included residential properties along Wharf Lane to the south, a SANG to the west, an area of open space was also located to the south of the application site - Heathfield Nature Reserveand immediately to the east was a public footpath which linked through to the Wey Navigation.  A towpath ran along the northern side.

A new vehicular access was proposed.  A new residential cul-de-sac would be created, comprising of three pairs of two-storey semi-detached dwellings positioned along a cul-de-sac with two detached two-storey dwellings positioned at the end of the cul-de-sac backing on to the Wey Navigation.   It was noted that these dwellings were not set as close to the navigation as the neighbouring dwelling to the west and Drive.  The housing mix would consist of two 2 bedroom dwellings, four 3 bedroom dwellings and two 4 bedroom dwellings.  A total of 21 parking spaces were proposed to serve the development including driveway spaces and car barns with two spaces for each of the two bed and 3 bed dwellings and 3 spaces for each of the four bed dwellings and also three visitor spaces proposed along the cul de sac and also one adjacent to plot 6.  There were several mature trees on the site boundaries and on the other side which were to be retained and new planting of trees was also proposed.

In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s view that there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed erection of 5 dwellings (1no. 2 bed, 2no. 3 beds and 2no. 4 beds) with access through the development to the north east approved under application 19/P/00721 along with all associated works. 

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr Chris White (Applicant) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Hannah Yates.  The application sought full planning permission for the erection of five dwellings.  The site was 0.3 hectares in area and comprised a large part of the garden area of Pine Cottage.  The site was on land inset from the Green Belt and was within 400 metres to 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). 

Each dwelling had two proposed parking spaces and there was also two business spaces for the development.   As a whole the proposal was comprised of a small extension to the adjacent development, the layout proposed allowed the new dwellings to face each other across the access road leaving a back-to-back relationship with the existing Pine Cottage.  The development would not adversely harm the scale and character of this part of Send Hill or the adjacent Green Belt.   The development sought to draw from a wide range of local detailing whilst bringing individuality to each plot.  Key features of the dwellings included chimneys with contrasting brick corners and the use of hips and gables to add interest to rooflines.  

In relation to site access the proposal had been deemed acceptable by Surrey County Council Highways adding only a few additional vehicle movements.  The applicant has also demonstrated that all vehicles would need to enter and exit the development could do so in an acceptable manner.   As detailed by the refuse tracking plan, the GBC Waste and Recycling team had raised no objection on this basis.

The application proposed one, two bed property, two, three bed properties and two. four bed properties.  It was acknowledged that the housing mix did not meet the requirements of the SHMA and did propose a high proportion of larger properties.   There was however still an identified need for four bed properties and due to the small scale nature of the site it was considerable acceptable in this instance.

The planning officer concluded that the benefits of the development outweighed the harm identified and therefore the application was recommended for approval subject to a S106 Agreement and association conditions.

The Chairman permitted Councillor Guida Esteves to speak in her capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes. 

The Committee noted concerns raised that the housing mix did not meet the identified housing needs of Send.  It was not an allocated site or one in the land availability assessment and therefore an unacceptable form of backland development which was out of keeping with the linear pattern of development in the area.  Whilst the Committee had to consider this application according to its merits it  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL9

Owing to the late hour, the Committee regrettably agreed to defer this application for consideration at the next Planning Committee meeting scheduled on 5 January 2022.

Committee members are asked to note the details of Appeal Decisions as attached at Item 6.

The Committee noted the planning appeal decisions.